But all you ever do is grab some stats from the web, have a whizz round Google Earth and make pronouncements about somewhere you have never been , its most peculiar behaviour.

Just because Manchester and Helsinki may have similar populations or size it doesn’t follow they are going to evolve or be exactly the same but that is all you ever do. One is a city largely born out of the industrial revolution and the other a centuries old capital of a city with a totally different culture, topography, evolution etc. You can never seem to grasp context, history, evolution, cultural, economic or social factors as to why a certain City is what it is, yet you make pronouncements that makes you think you are an expert on matters.

Centuries old capital?? You should pick up a history book. In the early 1800s Helsinki was a shitty town of a few thousand people. There were no stone buildings in the city. Next to Helsinki Manchester was ******* Babylon. The city you see today is the result of mostly the 19th and 20th centuries with some older additions, very much like Manchester. Helsinki has been a capital since 1812, however, Finland only became independent in 1917 so I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You don't seem to know the history of your own country as I in my last post explained why British cities look the way they do and that it should be corrected now.

You know I'm right and that bugs you. Get over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Helsinki's urban core is small and not especially dense, and neither are the other Nordic capitals. I didn't make any claims for other British cities.

Small? Compared to what? Helsinki is a relatively small city, but for its size the urban core is large enough. The same cannot be said about British cities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Their urban cores aren't extensive, I agree, though their centres are urban and dense.

Indeed. What British cities lack are proper inner cities. I think that is very much the topic here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Central Glasgow, for instance, is architecturally grander and denser than central Helsinki.

It is not denser, but if you think it's grander than good for you. There is one problem with Glasgow though, and that is monotony, the very thing you criticize Paris for. Most of Glasgow seems to me to be grey or beige with very little variation.

Helsinki was modelled after continental cities. For a city of its size the architecture in Helsinki was and is unnaturally grand (i.e. the Senate Square, The Esplanade). During the 19th century travellers from Europe often commented on the similarities between Helsinki and what they had seen in Paris or St Petersburg. And this was during a time when the real poor wooden town was hiding behind a grand facade. Manchester at this time had 10X the population of Helsinki.

Add to that the very unique nationalist Jugend stil, 30s functionalism and later modernism. In a Helsinki streets all buildings have different styles and colours.

Btw, ever heard of Alvar Aalto?

In two centuries Helsinki has made it from a poor, muddy and backwards shanty town into one of the most livable cities in the world. Manchester has gone from one of the worlds largest and richest industrial cities to what exactly?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

However a lack of density is an absurd criticism to make of London, which has the densest urban districts in Europe, and where the core extends for miles and miles. I repeat again, London's zone 1 can swallow up the Eixample six times over.

London is vast and has a big dense city centre. Again, don't compare London to smaller cities. Paris is far denser and more urban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

What a load of crap. Istanbul's Istiklal Cadessi is equivalent to London's Regent Street (and Regent Street is grander than Istiklal Cadessi imo).

I know, but that was not the point. The point is that that street would be nicer as inner city than what I posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

The picture you show for London is a bunch of council estates in zone 2 or 3. Manipulative and dishonest...

Really? So what does East London look like then? Are you saying it looks like Kensington or inner city Paris?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

It wasn't me who chose to compare London to Munich. It was El Greco. I simply pointed out that Munich's dense urban core could be swallowed up by London's many times over.

You keep comparing London to Barcelona.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Paris does have a vast sea of mid-rise apartment buildings, and, unlike Athens, one can say they're attractive. If consistency of style and medium density is your ideal (it's not mine...), then I'll concede Paris has a greater extent than London. However I wouldn't swap. Paris's inner core feels stagnated next to London.

I am no huge fan of the monotonous street scapes of Paris, however, high density/urban does not necessarely equal monotonous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

I don't think any part of Paris has London's dynamic "big city" vibe. It never gets as dense as the City. It never feels as lively and exciting as Piccadilly Circus / West End. It also doesn't have so many development zones in the wider metropolis. Brisavoine may hate me for saying it, but I think London has left Paris behind.

We aren't discussing city centres here. Although personally I also prefer London over Paris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

London's density does drop off rapidly to the east and south. However to the north and west of the centre, and also to the southwest, it continues unbroken way out into zone 2, with grand and imposing Victorian terraces or mansion blocks, and busy commercial districts such as Hammersmith.

Indeed. But as you know I specifically mentioned east and south.

__________________
Helsinki To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Helsinki Projects

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Paris proper is indeed denser than London's zone 1, and density in Paris remains fairly high for about 2 km beyond the Peripherique, but beyond that you are firmly into detached housing territory. On the other hand London's urban environment keeps undulating in density all the way out to zone 6.

The inner ring of Ile de France which covers the equivalent area of Zones 2 to 4 in London, has a density of 6650/sqkm, whereas London's Zones 2 to 4 has a density of about 8000/sqkm. It's hard to measure the urban population density of Ile de France's outer ring as the contituent departments contain a lot of rural areas, but I suspect it'd be a bit lower than the 3500 of London's outer boroughs (Zones 5 to 6).

__________________My Shanghai photos - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.!

Small? Compared to what? Helsinki is a relatively small city, but for its size the urban core is large enough. The same cannot be said about British cities.

Except for London whose urban core is far larger than all those low-density Nordic cities combined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Indeed. What British cities lack are proper inner cities. I think that is very much the topic here.

They don't lack inner cities at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

It is not denser, but if you think it's grander than good for you. There is one problem with Glasgow though, and that is monotony, the very thing you criticize Paris for. Most of Glasgow seems to me to be grey or beige with very little variation.

Glasgow's both denser and grander. If you think it's monotonous then you obviously haven't been to Glasgow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

In two centuries Helsinki has made it from a poor, muddy and backwards shanty town into one of the most livable cities in the world. Manchester has gone from one of the worlds largest and richest industrial cities to what exactly?

Far be it from me to defend Manchester, but it had its boom century in the C19th. Before the Industrial Revolution it was nowhere, a complete backwater. Seemingly overnight, it became the "workshop of the world", the world's first industrial city. It may not be anything important now, but Manchester had a greater impact on history than Helsinki.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Paris is far denser and more urban.

I disagree. Which part of Paris is as dense as the City? (Answer = nowhere.) Which part of Paris is an urban as the West End? (Answer = nowhere.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Indeed. But as you know I specifically mentioned east and south.

And in both directions the urbanity drops off only to pick up again. In the case of south it picks up almost immediately (Elephant & Castle). Towards the east, one has to travel a little further, but when it does pick up, one finds a cluster at Canary Wharf that probably contains more office space than all of central Helsinki, and a cluster of shops at Stratford with probably more retail space than all of central Helsinki.

__________________"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper

Except for London whose urban core is far larger than all those low-density Nordic cities combined.

Maybe because London is so much larger. Ffs try to get it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

They don't lack inner cities at all.

Aha.

Seriously pick up a history book. British cities are generally far more suburban than Nordic cities. There was a great then/now pic of Manchester posted on this forum a while back that illustrated this very well. Manchester's inner city was torn apart in the post-war era. Even London suffered from this. Look at pre-war aerials of east and south London and you'll understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Glasgow's both denser and grander. If you think it's monotonous then you obviously haven't been to Glasgow.

The building density appears to be pretty much the same. Grandeur is quite subjective don't you think. I haven't been to Glasgow (would love to visit), however, if you call Paris monotonous then what the hell is Glasgow?? There is no logic in your claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Far be it from me to defend Manchester, but it had its boom century in the C19th. Before the Industrial Revolution it was nowhere, a complete backwater. Seemingly overnight, it became the "workshop of the world", the world's first industrial city. It may not be anything important now, but Manchester had a greater impact on history than Helsinki.

Ok. Have I ever claimed the opposite?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

I disagree. Which part of Paris is as dense as the City? (Answer = nowhere.) Which part of Paris is an urban as the West End? (Answer = nowhere.)And in both directions the urbanity drops off only to pick up again. In the case of south it picks up almost immediately (Elephant & Castle). Towards the east, one has to travel a little further, but when it does pick up, one finds a cluster at Canary Wharf that probably contains more office space than all of central Helsinki, and a cluster of shops at Stratford with probably more retail space than all of central Helsinki.

The City is a tiny area. Most of central Paris feels just as dense. Why is the West End more urban? It might be busier but that's it.

E&C is hardly very urban. And even if it was most of the landscape between it and the South Bank isn't urban.

Climbing up to a high point in Paris and London makes it quite obvious that Paris is far denser. Do this if you haven't.

__________________
Helsinki To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Helsinki Projects

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Not really they aren't. Nordic cities are extremely low density. Netherlands and Belgium are dense overall but highly suburbanised and bear absolutely no resemblance to Barcelona. The German climate is not similar to London.

Not that it really matters as you seems to create a lively debate anywway and I doubt many care either, but I just wanted to correct one thing: The density numbers you post there are for the Oslo municipal. Our muni was merged with neighbouring muni in 1948 which had a whole load of forest areas in it. The results is that Oslos current muni limits consist of 2/3 forest.

Heres a satellite picture with the muni limits in pink and the urban area in red:

I don't have any density numbers for the "real" city, but it should be considerable higher like I'm sure understand based on the picture above.

The City is a tiny area. Most of central Paris feels just as dense. Why is the West End more urban? It might be busier but that's it.

E&C is hardly very urban. And even if it was most of the landscape between it and the South Bank isn't urban.

Climbing up to a high point in Paris and London makes it quite obvious that Paris is far denser. Do this if you haven't.

The City is far denser than anywhere in Paris. The West End is far more urban than anywhere in Paris. There are more people, more shops, more bars, more restaurants, more theatres, more nightlife, etc, than anywhere in Paris (or indeed anywhere in Europe). If you think there's a comparably urban district in Paris, then tell me where? I'd say Paris gets most intensely urban around the grands magasins or maybe Chatelet les Halles, but those are tiny areas compared to London's West End.

I go up London's tall buildings all the time. I was up the Gherkin for the 2nd time on Sunday. I've been to the bars/restaurant at the top of Heron Tower twice since they opened a couple of months ago. I've been to the bars atop Tower 42, Pan Peninsula, and the Park Lane Hilton lots of times. I have an annual ticket to go up St Paul's and I go up there every time I'm in the area. As my work takes me to the Barbican towers, I go up them regularly too. When I used to live in Paris, I went up the Eiffel Tower, Tour Montparnasse, Grande Arch de la Defense, Notre Dame, Arc de Triomphe (etc...) lots of times. In short, I know the high views of both of these cities far better than you, so spare me the patronising tone.

My conclusion is that Paris has a more extensive area of medium density, but central London is considerably denser and more urban than central Paris, especially in the City and West End.

Elephant & Castle is definitely urban. The area between Elephant and the South Bank includes gargantuan new office buildings such as Bankside 1/2/3, Palestra, and the London Bridge Quarter. There's some smaller scale housing in the mix, but the average density is nonetheless very high. For every street of small houses, there's a cluster of high Victorian mansion blocks, high-rise council blocks, or modern development like Neo Bankside or Strata. The activities of the area, with its museums, theatres, cinemas, galleries, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, large railway termini, etc, are very much those of a central urban district, and they extend right out to Elephant.

__________________"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper

Mr Bricks: your main point seems to be that British cities are inferior to Helsinki because they lack a dense urban core. You have chosen Manchester as your case study. I have no idea why you've decided to make this point, but nonetheless, here is a number of things you would do well to bear in mind:

1., Helsinki is on a peninsula jutting out into the sea, which forces density in a way that doesn't apply to any British city;
2., Helsinki has a GDP/capita of €45000, whilst Manchester's is €35000, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise to you that Helsinki is much nicer in terms of urban planning, density, architecture, etc.;
3., Helsinki is also a capital city, whilst Manchester is a small regional city - surely you realize that a capital city carries prestige that attracts all the better & bigger things?

As to your arguments vis-á-vis London, Paris, Glasgow, etc.: they seem to be completely inconsistent and senseless.

Mr. bricks I would not go around advertising your beautiful city as you might get a load of people that want to move there including me. Causing extra demand for more homes and a denser city. No more Helsinki as you know it, just like what's happen/happening in london.

One thing to bare in mind is that while inner city mistakes have obviously been made in some UK cities, British suburbs (or outer towns in conurbations) tend to be denser than their continental counterparts.

Manchester's inner city is undoubtedly a bit shit (admit it it is), however residential areas in towns like Bolton and Oldham can be very dense indeed. You don't generally get this kind of thing in British cities for example

__________________My Shanghai photos - To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts., To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.!

The City is far denser than anywhere in Paris. The West End is far more urban than anywhere in Paris. There are more people, more shops, more bars, more restaurants, more theatres, more nightlife, etc, than anywhere in Paris (or indeed anywhere in Europe). If you think there's a comparably urban district in Paris, then tell me where? I'd say Paris gets most intensely urban around the grands magasins or maybe Chatelet les Halles, but those are tiny areas compared to London's West End.

I go up London's tall buildings all the time. I was up the Gherkin for the 2nd time on Sunday. I've been to the bars/restaurant at the top of Heron Tower twice since they opened a couple of months ago. I've been to the bars atop Tower 42, Pan Peninsula, and the Park Lane Hilton lots of times. I have an annual ticket to go up St Paul's and I go up there every time I'm in the area. As my work takes me to the Barbican towers, I go up them regularly too. When I used to live in Paris, I went up the Eiffel Tower, Tour Montparnasse, Grande Arch de la Defense, Notre Dame, Arc de Triomphe (etc...) lots of times. In short, I know the high views of both of these cities far better than you, so spare me the patronising tone.

My conclusion is that Paris has a more extensive area of medium density, but central London is considerably denser and more urban than central Paris, especially in the City and West End.

Elephant & Castle is definitely urban. The area between Elephant and the South Bank includes gargantuan new office buildings such as Bankside 1/2/3, Palestra, and the London Bridge Quarter. There's some smaller scale housing in the mix, but the average density is nonetheless very high. For every street of small houses, there's a cluster of high Victorian mansion blocks, high-rise council blocks, or modern development like Neo Bankside or Strata. The activities of the area, with its museums, theatres, cinemas, galleries, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, large railway termini, etc, are very much those of a central urban district, and they extend right out to Elephant.

I am talking building density. People, shops and restaurants have nothing to do with that.

Regarding London and Paris you are simply wrong. Go to the shard/walkie talkie threads and look at the aerials of south London, then look at an aerial of Paris' left bank. Can you spot the difference? Paris: a dense urban landscape of "tall" apartment buildings. London: low density (except for the south bank) low-rise landscape with office blocks here and there. In many places you see just trees because buildings are so low and spread out. Too lazy to post pics, you go ahead if you feel like it.

This is not a question of which city is better, just a discussion about how two cities are different. What I don't understand is Langur's constant London propaganda that is based on complete bs and denial of facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

Mr Bricks: your main point seems to be that British cities are inferior to Helsinki because they lack a dense urban core. You have chosen Manchester as your case study. I have no idea why you've decided to make this point, but nonetheless, here is a number of things you would do well to bear in mind:

I compared the two to prove my point. My aim is not to say that British cities are inferior, in many cases they are supperior to Helsinki. I just don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting facts. I critisize cities, for good and bad, be it Helsinki, Manchester or London.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loathing

1., Helsinki is on a peninsula jutting out into the sea, which forces density in a way that doesn't apply to any British city;
2., Helsinki has a GDP/capita of €45000, whilst Manchester's is €35000, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise to you that Helsinki is much nicer in terms of urban planning, density, architecture, etc.;
3., Helsinki is also a capital city, whilst Manchester is a small regional city - surely you realize that a capital city carries prestige that attracts all the better & bigger things?

As to your arguments vis-á-vis London, Paris, Glasgow, etc.: they seem to be completely inconsistent and senseless.

1. In a way you're right. However, the Helsinki peninsula could have been filled with low-rise sprawl. Helsinki chose to follow the continental style. In the post-war era the dense inner city was seen as model how not to build cities, especially by architects and planners, but luckily there was no money to cause any major damage to it.

2. Maybe. However historically Manchester was always richer. And the cores of these cities are mainly old.

3. Again, Manchester has historically been the larger, richer more attractive city.

My point regarding Glasgow was that you cannot say Paris is monotonous (as Langur constantly does) and at the same time claim Glasgow isn't. If the Glasgow picture threads are anything to go by Glasgow, although grand, seems very grey with little variation in colour.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCT

One thing to bare in mind is that while inner city mistakes have obviously been made in some UK cities, British suburbs (or outer towns in conurbations) tend to be denser than their continental counterparts.

Manchester's inner city is undoubtedly a bit shit (admit it it is), however residential areas in towns like Bolton and Oldham can be very dense indeed. You don't generally get this kind of thing in British cities for example

Very true. In my comparison of the two cities I also took this into consideration.

__________________
Helsinki To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Helsinki Projects

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

^ My comments on monotony were aimed more at Athens and the Eixample than Paris, though it's true that large swathes of Paris are somewhat samey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

I am talking building density. People, shops and restaurants have nothing to do with that.

I am too. The City has far greater building density than anywhere in Paris. However we also talked of "more urban". Urban isn't just about building density. Walk around areas like Paris's 16th, council estates, or high-rise suburbs in cities like Hong Kong or Singapore. The building and population density is very high, but there's little to zero urban life. An area is urban when it's busy and fulfils urban functions: ie when it's full of people, shops, restaurants, bars, theatres, etc. London's West End is the most urban place in Europe: more so than any district of Paris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Regarding London and Paris you are simply wrong. Go to the shard/walkie talkie threads and look at the aerials of south London, then look at an aerial of Paris' left bank. Can you spot the difference? Paris: a dense urban landscape of "tall" apartment buildings. London: low density (except for the south bank) low-rise landscape with office blocks here and there. In many places you see just trees because buildings are so low and spread out. Too lazy to post pics, you go ahead if you feel like it.

This is not a question of which city is better, just a discussion about how two cities are different. What I don't understand is Langur's constant London propaganda that is based on complete bs and denial of facts.

I'm not wrong, and I know both cities intimately, so, unlike you, I don't need to refer to threads on SSC. The only part of London south of the Thames that con be considered comparable to the Left Bank is that part within zone 1, ie extending from the South Bank to Elephant (a smaller area than the Left Bank: central London is less evenly split by its river than central Paris). The buildings on Paris's Left Bank may be more densely packed, but they're not "tall". In fact they're generally quite low (5 stories is typical). There are virtually no high-rise buildings on the Left Bank, yet just one high-rise building is enough to add the floor-space equivalent of an extra 1-2 stories to every small building over a wide area. That's why the handful of relatively small houses on some streets between South Bank and Elephant, that you and Greco despise so much as "anti-urban", are more than compensated for by the council estate tower blocks and modern developments. Think how much floor space is added by developments like the Shard, More London, or Bankside 1/2/3? Tons! Yet there's no equivalent of that on the Left Bank. The building floor space per square kilometer between the South Bank and Elephant is probably comparable to the Left Bank right now, but this part of London will substantially overtake the Left Bank's density over the next decade.

When it comes to urban activity, once again they're about the same. Both have quiet side streets between busy thoroughfares. If you think Paris's Left Bank is all dense and busy, then I suggest you walk down one of the narrow streets between the Jardin de Luxembourg and the river. They're almost empty.

In truth these areas are very diffierent in character. Paris's Left Bank is historic, attractive, architecturally consistent, and stagnated. London between South Bank and Elephant is architecturally inconsistent, disjointed by railway lines, post-industrial, and often ugly. However it's just as dense and lively, and, unlike Paris's Left Bank, has huge development potential.

__________________"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper

I am too. The City has far greater building density than anywhere in Paris. However we also talked of "more urban". Urban isn't just about building density. Walk around areas like Paris's 16th, council estates, or high-rise suburbs in cities like Hong Kong or Singapore. The building and population density is very high, but there's little to zero urban life. An area is urban when it's busy and fulfils urban functions: ie when it's full of people, shops, restaurants, bars, theatres, etc. London's West End is the most urban place in Europe: more so than any district of Paris.

So keep to the subject. You are correct that an area can be urban without high building density or tall buildings. That doesn't change the fact that Paris is far denser than London.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

I'm not wrong, and I know both cities intimately, so, unlike you, I don't need to refer to threads on SSC. The only part of London south of the Thames that con be considered comparable to the Left Bank is that part within zone 1, ie extending from the South Bank to Elephant (a smaller area than the Left Bank: central London is less evenly split by its river than central Paris). The buildings on Paris's Left Bank may be more densely packed, but they're not "tall". In fact they're generally quite low (5 stories is typical). There are virtually no high-rise buildings on the Left Bank, yet just one high-rise building is enough to add the floor-space equivalent of an extra 1-2 stories to every small building over a wide area. That's why the handful of relatively small houses on some streets between South Bank and Elephant, that you and Greco despise so much as "anti-urban", are more than compensated for by the council estate tower blocks and modern developments. Think how much floor space is added by developments like the Shard, More London, or Bankside 1/2/3? Tons! Yet there's no equivalent of that on the Left Bank. The building floor space per square kilometer between the South Bank and Elephant is probably comparable to the Left Bank right now, but this part of London will substantially overtake the Left Bank's density over the next decade.

London:

Paris:

How you can compare E&C to that is beyond me. Those Parisian buildings are "tall" compared to what you find in South London. And what the hell does floor space have to do with anything!? We are talking about the urban landscape and street level experience. You could build a mile-high tower in South London that would swallow all of the Left Bank in it, but that would not make South London any more urban.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

When it comes to urban activity, once again they're about the same. Both have quiet side streets between busy thoroughfares. If you think Paris's Left Bank is all dense and busy, then I suggest you walk down one of the narrow streets between the Jardin de Luxembourg and the river. They're almost empty.

I never said it was busier. But then again it's far nice to walk along beautiful and quiet inner city streets and to lose oneself in a maze of 60s estates. Aren't Kensington and Chelsea far nice than South London as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Langur

In truth these areas are very diffierent in character. Paris's Left Bank is historic, attractive, architecturally consistent, and stagnated. London between South Bank and Elephant is architecturally inconsistent, disjointed by railway lines, post-industrial, and often ugly. However it's just as dense and lively, and, unlike Paris's Left Bank, has huge development potential.

It has huge potential, that's true and very exciting. But why is that? Precisely because there are so many crappy buildings and undeveloped land. And what then when it's all dense and developed? Will the area then be as stagnant as Paris?

__________________
Helsinki To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Helsinki Projects

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Bricksy you really are one of the oddest most peculiar posters on SSC. I mean you are having another argument about a city you have very little physical knowledge of and them comparing it to another city via another city you have never been to using the power of google maps. Seriously man get a life.

How you think anyone can take you seriously when your arguments and ‘expertise’ on a City of around 659 sq miles is based on your unhealthy obsession with google Earth and that you read a book on the place having been their as a tourist. Your ignorance of South London, a vast area with a multitude of metropolitan centres is astounding but that’s to be expected as you have no physical experience of it.

Seriously Helsinki is supposed to be one of the most liveable cities in the world to quote a certain resident. Maybe that person should get out a bit more.

Bricksy you really are one of the oddest most peculiar posters on SSC. I mean you are having another argument about a city you have very little physical knowledge of and them comparing it to another city via another city you have never been to using the power of google maps. Seriously man get a life.

How you think anyone can take you seriously when your arguments and ‘expertise’ on a City of around 659 sq miles is based on your unhealthy obsession with google Earth and that you read a book on the place having been their as a tourist. Your ignorance of South London, a vast area with a multitude of metropolitan centres is astounding but that’s to be expected as you have no physical experience of it.

Seriously Helsinki is supposed to be one of the most liveable cities in the world to quote a certain resident. Maybe that person should get out a bit more.

Again, no hard facts. What a ******* loser you are.

I for one am confortable with the fact that I know the limitations of my home town. I try to discuss problems with others who are interested and come up with solutions. Too bad that seems to be out of fashion in London. Nothing to improve in this magnificent city eh? Talk about being arrogant and ignorant.

I've lived abroad and travelled extensively, thank you very much.

__________________
Helsinki To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Helsinki Projects

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

So keep to the subject. You are correct that an area can be urban without high building density or tall buildings. That doesn't change the fact that Paris is far denser than London.

No it isn't. Nowhere in Paris is as dense as the City. Nowhere in Paris is as urban as London's West End.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

How you can compare E&C to that is beyond me. Those Parisian buildings are "tall" compared to what you find in South London. And what the hell does floor space have to do with anything!? We are talking about the urban landscape and street level experience. You could build a mile-high tower in South London that would swallow all of the Left Bank in it, but that would not make South London any more urban.

Lol your ignorance of London shines through once again. The Shard is at the edge of zone 1. The area beyond that photo - everything to the left - is in zone 2. I have been talking about zone 1 only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

I never said it was busier. But then again it's far nice to walk along beautiful and quiet inner city streets and to lose oneself in a maze of 60s estates. Aren't Kensington and Chelsea far nice than South London as well?

Of course it's more pleasant. I said as much in my next sentence. However this is not what we've been discussing. We've been discussing density. The high rise buildings and large modern developments between the South Bank and Elephant are far bulkier and more space-efficient than the buildings of Paris's Left Bank. They're enough to compensate for the handful of streets with low-rise housing. However much of the area is mid-density in any case. It doesn't need be "compensated for". The measure is total building floor space per square kilometer. On that score, I'd guess that zone 1 south of the river is currently about the same as Paris's Left Bank. Finally note that your Paris photo shows the large buildings fronting the Champs de Mars. They're not typical of the whole of the Left Bank.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

It has huge potential, that's true and very exciting. But why is that? Precisely because there are so many crappy buildings and undeveloped land. And what then when it's all dense and developed? Will the area then be as stagnant as Paris?

It's not undeveloped. There's hardly any spare land waiting to be built upon. It's just badly developed. The area is changing from an industrial character to one fully integrated with the rest of central London. It will take a long time to develop the area's potential in full, and who knows what will happen once it eventually gets there. However we're already knocking down and redeveloping '60s buildings, so there's no reason to suppose the area will stand still. Paris's Left Bank has stagnated because it's attractive, worth preserving, and inhabited by influential left-wing nimbies who will ensure it retains its current character. I support them in their endeavors, but it does mean stagnation.

__________________"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper

Indeed. There are 20 storey high-rises that look absolutely tiny. Yet they'd tower over every building in the shot of Paris.

__________________"Climb if you will, but remember that courage and strength are nought without prudence, and that a momentary negligence may destroy the happiness of a lifetime. Do nothing in haste; look well to each step; and from the beginning think what may be the end." Edward Whymper

I for one am confortable with the fact that I know the limitations of my home town. I try to discuss problems with others who are interested and come up with solutions. Too bad that seems to be out of fashion in London. Nothing to improve in this magnificent city eh? Talk about being arrogant and ignorant.

You really are bizzare, you don’t discuss you make ignorant assumptions based on an unhealthy obsession with google. It’s not an argument about improving London, people here who actually know the city and have actually walked its pavements know full well its limitations and strengths, they also know what is being built, what is planned and why an area is what it is.

You on the other hand seem to think if you look at a satellite image of a random city and compare it to another random city you have never been to prove some bizarre point. That is not discussion it’s the sign of someone not quite there. The only arrogance and ignorance is your own, your arrogance in thinking you are some sort of knowledge of London worthy of debate when in fact all it shows up is how ignorant you are of it.

Seriously what do you get out of it? Surely you can find better things to do with your time in Helsinki.